Healthcare provider perspectives on integrating a comprehensive spine care model in an academic health system: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems (HCS) are challenged in adopting and sustaining comprehensive approaches to spine care that require coordination and collaboration among multiple service units. The integration of clinicians who provide first line, evidence-based, non-pharmacological therapies further complicates adoption of these care pathways. This cross-sectional study explored clinician perceptions about the integration of guideline-concordant care and optimal spine care workforce requirements within an academic HCS. METHODS: Spine care clinicians from Duke University Health System (DUHS) completed a 26-item online survey via Qualtrics on barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline concordant care for low back pain patients. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 27 clinicians (57% response) responded to one or more items on the questionnaire, with 23 completing the majority of questions. Respondents reported that guidelines were implementable within DUHS, but no spine care guideline was used consistently across provider types. Guideline access and integration with electronic records were barriers to use. Respondents (81%) agreed most patients would benefit from non-pharmacological therapies such as physical therapy or chiropractic before receiving specialty referrals. Providers perceived spine patients expected diagnostic imaging (81%) and medication (70%) over non-pharmacological therapies. Providers agreed that receiving imaging (63%) and opioids (59%) benchmarks could be helpful but might not change their ordering practice, even if nudged by best practice advisories. Participants felt that an optimal spine care workforce would require more chiropractors and primary care providers and fewer neurosurgeons and orthopedists. In qualitative responses, respondents emphasized the following barriers to guideline-concordant care implementation: patient expectations, provider confidence with referral pathways, timely access, and the appropriate role of spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Spine care clinicians had positive support for current tenets of guideline-concordant spine care for low back pain patients. However, significant barriers to implementation were identified, including mixed opinions about integration of non-pharmacological therapies, referral pathways, and best practices for imaging and opioid use.

TIDieR-telehealth: precision in reporting of telehealth interventions used in clinical trials - unique considerations for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

BACKGROUND: Recent international health events have led to an increased proliferation of remotely delivered health interventions. Even with the pandemic seemingly coming under control, the experiences of the past year have fueled a growth in ideas and technology for increasing the scope of remote care delivery. Unfortunately, clinicians and health systems will have difficulty with the adoption and implementation of these interventions if ongoing and future clinical trials fail to report necessary details about execution, platforms, and infrastructure related to these interventions. The purpose was to develop guidance for reporting of telehealth interventions. METHODS: A working group from the US Pain Management Collaboratory developed guidance for complete reporting of telehealth interventions. The process went through 5-step process from conception to final checklist development with input for many stakeholders, to include all 11 primary investigators with trials in the Collaboratory. RESULTS: An extension focused on unique considerations relevant to telehealth interventions was developed for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. CONCLUSION: The Telehealth Intervention guideline encourages use of the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist as a valuable tool (TIDieR-Telehealth) to improve the quality of research through a reporting guide of relevant interventions that will help maximize reproducibility and implementation.

Health-Related Quality of Life Among United States Service Members with Low Back Pain Receiving Usual Care Plus Chiropractic Care vs Usual Care Alone: Secondary Outcomes of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)-29 v1.0 outcomes of chiropractic care in a multi-site, pragmatic clinical trial and compares the PROMIS measures to: 1) worst pain intensity from a numerical pain rating 0-10 scale, 2) 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); and 3) global improvement (modified visual analog scale). DESIGN: A pragmatic, prospective, multisite, parallel-group comparative effectiveness clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) with UMC plus chiropractic care (UMC+CC). SETTING: Three military treatment facilities. SUBJECTS: 750 active-duty military personnel with low back pain. METHODS: Linear mixed effects regression models estimated the treatment group differences. Coefficient of repeatability to estimate significant individual change. RESULTS: We found statistically significant mean group differences favoring UMC+CC for all PROMIS®-29 scales and the RMDQ score. Area under the curve estimates for global improvement for the PROMIS®-29 scales and the RMDQ, ranged from 0.79 to 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this pre-planned secondary analysis demonstrate that chiropractic care impacts health-related quality of life beyond pain and pain-related disability. Further, comparable findings were found between the 24-item RMDQ and the PROMIS®-29 v1.0 briefer scales.

Characteristics of Chiropractic Patients in the Veterans Health Administration During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether patient characteristics were associated with face-to-face (F2F) and telehealth visits for those receiving chiropractic care for musculoskeletal conditions in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of all patients (veterans, dependents, and spouses) who received chiropractic care nationwide at the VHA from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, was performed. Patients were allocated into 1 of the following 3 groups: only telehealth visits, only F2F visits, and combined F2F and telehealth visits. Patient characteristics included age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Multinomial logistic regression estimated associations of these variables with visit type. RESULTS: The total number of unique patients seen by chiropractors between March 2020 and February 2021 was 62 658. Key findings were that patients of non-White race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity were more likely to attend telehealth-only visits (Black [odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval {1.10-1.31}], other races [1.36 {1.16-1.59}], and Hispanic or Latino [1.35 {1.20-1.52}]) and combination telehealth and F2F care (Black [1.32 {1.25-1.40}], other races [1.37 {1.23-1.52}], and Hispanic or Latino [1.63 {1.51-1.76}]). Patients younger than 40 years of age were more likely to choose telehealth visits ([1.13 {1.02-1.26}], 66-75 years [1.17 {1.01-1.35}], and >75 years [1.26 {1.06-1.51}] vs those 40-55 years of age). Sex, visit frequency, and Charlson Comorbidity Index showed significant relationships as well, while marital status did not. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, VHA patients with musculoskeletal complaints using chiropractic telehealth were more ethnically and racially diverse than those using F2F care alone.

Extrapolating Beyond the Data in a Systematic Review of Spinal Manipulation for Nonmusculoskeletal Disorders: A Fall From the Summit.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to discuss a literature review-a recent systematic review of nonmusculoskeletal disorders-that demonstrates the potential for faulty conclusions and misguided policy implications, and to offer an alternate interpretation of the data using present models and criteria. METHODS: We participated in a chiropractic meeting (Global Summit) that aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy and effectiveness of mobilization or spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and treatment of nonmusculoskeletal disorders. After considering an early draft of the resulting manuscript, we identified points of concern and therefore declined authorship. The present article was developed to describe those concerns about the review and its conclusions. RESULTS: Three main concerns were identified: the inherent limitations of a systematic review of 6 articles on the topic of SMT for nonmusculoskeletal disorders, the lack of biological plausibility of collapsing 5 different disorders into a single category, and considerations for best practices when using evidence in policy-making. We propose that the following conclusion is more consistent with a review of the 6 articles. The small cadre of high- or moderate-quality randomized controlled trials reviewed in this study found either no or equivocal effects from SMT as a stand-alone treatment for infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, or migraine, and found no or low-quality evidence available to support other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Therefore, further research is needed to determine if SMT may have an effect in these and other nonmusculoskeletal conditions. Until the results of such research are available, the benefits of SMT for specific or general nonmusculoskeletal disorders should not be promoted as having strong supportive evidence. Further, a lack of evidence cannot be interpreted as counterevidence, nor used as evidence of falsification or verification. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, some statements generated from the Summit were extrapolated beyond the data, have the potential to misrepresent the literature, and should be used with caution. Given that none of the trials included in the literature review were definitively negative, the current evidence suggests that more research on nonmusculoskeletal conditions is warranted before any definitive conclusions can be made. Governments, insurers, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should avoid using systematic reviews in decisions where the research is insufficient to determine the clinical appropriateness of specific care.

Chiropractic Services and Diagnoses for Low Back Pain in 3 U.S. Department of Defense Military Treatment Facilities: A Secondary Analysis of a Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the diagnoses and chiropractic services performed by doctors of chiropractic operating within 3 military treatment facilities for patients with low back pain (LBP). METHODS: This was a descriptive secondary analysis of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing usual medical care (UMC) plus chiropractic care to UMC alone for U.S. active-duty military personnel with LBP. Participants who were allocated to receive UMC plus 6 weeks of chiropractic care and who attended at least 1 chiropractic visit (n = 350; 1547 unique visits) were included in this analysis. International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes were transcribed from chiropractic treatment paper forms. The number of participants receiving each diagnosis and service and the number of each service on unique visits was tabulated. Low back pain and co-occurring diagnoses were grouped into neuropathic, nociceptive, bone and/or joint, general pain, and nonallopathic lesions categories. Services were categorized as evaluation, active interventions, and passive interventions. RESULTS: The most reported pain diagnoses were lumbalgia (66.1%) and thoracic pain (6.6%). Most reported neuropathic pain diagnoses were sciatica (4.9%) and lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis (2.9%). For the nociceptive pain, low back sprain and/or strain (15.8%) and lumbar facet syndrome (9.2%) were most common. Most reported diagnoses in the bone and/or joint category were intervertebral disc degeneration (8.6%) and spondylosis (6.0%). Tobacco use disorder (5.7%) was the most common in the other category. Chiropractic care was compromised of passive interventions (94%), with spinal manipulative therapy being the most common, active interventions (77%), with therapeutic exercise being most common, and a combination of passive and active interventions (72%). CONCLUSION: For the sample in this study, doctors of chiropractic within 3 military treatment facilities diagnosed, managed, and provided clinical evaluations for a range of LBP conditions. Although spinal manipulation was the most commonly used modality, chiropractic care included a multimodal approach, comprising of both active and passive interventions a majority of the time.

Changes in the Use of Telehealth and Face-To-Face Chiropractic Care in the Department of Veterans Affairs Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the use of face-to-face and telehealth chiropractic care in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) before and after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed of VHA administrative data, including monthly numbers of unique patients and visits for face-to-face and telehealth (synchronous video or telephone) chiropractic care from October 1, 2019, to March 31, 2021. RESULTS: During the pre-pandemic phase (October 2019 to February 2020), a mean of 28 930 (SD 289) total monthly visits were conducted face-to-face (99.9%). In March 2020, total monthly visits decreased to 17.0% of the pre-pandemic average, 25.0% being face-to-face, with over a 200-fold increase in telehealth visits (rising to 1331 visits) compared to the pre-pandemic average. April showed the lowest number of face-to-face visits at (4094). May-October 2020 showed that face-to-face visits increase on average by 70.7% per month, while telehealth visits averaged 17.3% per month. October-February 2020 had total monthly visits plateau at a mean of 22 250 (76.9% of the pre-pandemic average). Telehealth visits reduced to a mean of 1245 monthly visits over this 5-month period, a drop of -5.6% of the average of monthly visits. In March 2021, total monthly visits (31 221) exceeded the pre-pandemic average for the first time since January 2020; 4.0% remained in telehealth. CONCLUSION: Face-to-face visits decreased early in the pandemic but increased after May 2020. Chiropractic telehealth use rapidly increased during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic, and decreased later, but remained slightly higher than pre-pandemic levels.

Veteran Response to Dosage in Chiropractic Therapy (VERDICT): Study Protocol of a Pragmatic Randomized Trial for Chronic Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a leading cause of disability in veterans. Chiropractic care is a well-integrated, nonpharmacological therapy in Veterans Affairs health care facilities, where doctors of chiropractic provide therapeutic interventions focused on the management of low back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions. However, important knowledge gaps remain regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic care in terms of the number and frequency of treatment visits needed for optimal outcomes in veterans with low back pain. DESIGN: This pragmatic, parallel-group randomized trial at four Veterans Affairs sites will include 766 veterans with chronic low back pain who are randomly allocated to a course of low-dose (one to five visits) or higher-dose (eight to 12 visits) chiropractic care for 10 weeks (Phase 1). After Phase 1, participants within each treatment arm will again be randomly allocated to receive either monthly chiropractic chronic pain management for 10 months or no scheduled chiropractic visits (Phase 2). Assessments will be collected electronically. The Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire will be the primary outcome for Phase 1 at week 10 and Phase 2 at week 52. SUMMARY: This trial will provide evidence to guide the chiropractic dose in an initial course of care and an extended-care approach for veterans with chronic low back pain. Accurate information on the effectiveness of different dosing regimens of chiropractic care can greatly assist health care facilities, including Veterans Affairs, in modeling the number of doctors of chiropractic that will best meet the needs of patients with chronic low back pain.

Development of a Clinical Decision Aid for Chiropractic Management of Common Conditions Causing Low Back Pain in Veterans: Results of a Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop a clinical decision aid for chiropractic management of common conditions causing low back pain (LBP) in veterans receiving treatment in US Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities. METHODS: A consensus study using an online, modified Delphi technique and Research Electronic Data Capture web application was conducted among VA doctors of chiropractic. Investigators reviewed the scientific literature pertaining to diagnosis and treatment of nonsurgical, neuromusculoskeletal LBP. Thirty seed statements summarizing evidence for chiropractic management, a graphical stepped management tool outlining diagnosis-informed treatment approaches, and support materials were then reviewed by an expert advisory committee. Email notifications invited 113 VA chiropractic clinicians to participate as Delphi panelists. Panelists rated the appropriateness of the seed statements and the stepped process on a 1-to-9 scale using the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles methodology. Statements were accepted when both the median rating and 80% of all ratings occurred within the highly appropriate range. RESULTS: Thirty-nine panelists (74% male) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 46 (11) years and clinical experience of 17 (11) years participated in the study. Accepted statements addressed included (1) essential components of chiropractic care, (2) treatments for conditions causing or contributing to LBP, (3) spinal manipulation mechanisms, (4) descriptions and mechanisms of commonly used chiropractic interventions, and (5) a graphical stepped clinical management tool. CONCLUSION: This study group produced a chiropractic clinical decision aid for LBP management, which can be used to support evidence-based care decisions for veterans with LBP.

Interprofessional Attitudes and Interdisciplinary Practices for Older Adults With Back Pain Among Doctors of Chiropractic: A Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to report on attitudes of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) toward integrative medicine and their self-reported interdisciplinary practices for older adults with back pain. METHODS: This descriptive survey was conducted with licensed DCs in a Midwestern community in the United States. Respondents completed a 53-item postal survey of demographics, practice characteristics, referral and co-management patterns, attitudes toward interdisciplinary practice, and the Integrative Medicine-30 Questionnaire (IM-30). Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven DCs completed the survey (29% response). Geriatric-focused chiropractic practices were uncommon (<15%), although 56% reported that 25% to 49% of the patients treated each week were older adults. Respondents had a moderate orientation toward collaboration with other health care providers (IM-30 mean [standard deviation] 61.3 [11.5]). The IM-30 subscales placed DCs high on measures of integrative medicine safety; moderate on patient-centeredness, openness to working with other providers, and referral readiness; and low on learning from alternative paradigms. Doctors of chiropractic most referred older patients to neurologists, family physicians, massage therapists, orthopedists, and other chiropractors. Doctors of chiropractic reported the highest levels of co-management with family physicians, physical therapists, and massage therapists. Most DCs (92%) were confident in their own ability to manage back pain in older adults, with modest confidence expressed for treatments from professionals using manual therapies. Most (77%) responded that older patients would experience the most improvement if DCs collaborated with another chiropractor, rather than with medical professionals. CONCLUSION: Doctors of chiropractic in one geographic community are moderately oriented toward interprofessional practice with other health care providers for older adults with back pain. Follow-up studies in representative national and international samples are recommended.

Opioid Use Among Veterans of Recent Wars Receiving Veterans Affairs Chiropractic Care.

Objective: To examine patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with opioid use among Veterans of Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom/New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) who receive chiropractic care, and to explore the relationship between timing of a chiropractic visit and receipt of an opioid prescription. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of administrative data on OEF/OIF/OND veterans who had at least one visit to a Veterans Affairs (VA) chiropractic clinic between 2004 and 2014. Opioid receipt was defined as at least one prescription within a window of 90 days before to 90 days after the index chiropractic clinic visit. Results: We identified 14,025 OEF/OIF/OND veterans with at least one chiropractic visit, and 4,396 (31.3%) of them also received one or more opioid prescriptions. Moderate/severe pain (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.72-2.03), PTSD (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.41-1.69), depression (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.29-1.53), and current smoking (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.26-1.52) were associated with a higher likelihood of receiving an opioid prescription. The percentage of veterans receiving opioid prescriptions was lower in each of the three 30-day time frames assessed after the index chiropractic visit than before. Conclusions: Nearly one-third of OEF/OIF/OND veterans receiving VA chiropractic services also received an opioid prescription, yet the frequency of opioid prescriptions was lower after the index chiropractic visit than before. Further study is warranted to assess the relationship between opioid use and chiropractic care.

Integration of Doctors of Chiropractic Into Private Sector Health Care Facilities in the United States: A Descriptive Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the demographic, facility, and practice characteristics of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) working in private sector health care settings in the United States. METHODS: We conducted an online, cross-sectional survey using a purposive sample of DCs (n = 50) working in integrated health care facilities. The 36-item survey collected demographic, facility, chiropractic, and interdisciplinary practice characteristics, which were analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The response rate was 76% (n = 38). Most respondents were men and mid-career professionals with a mean 21 years of experience in chiropractic. Doctors of chiropractic reported working in hospitals (40%), multispecialty offices (21%), ambulatory clinics (16%), or other (21%) health care settings. Most (68%) were employees and received salary compensation (59%). The median number of DCs per setting was 2 (range 1-8). Most DCs used the same health record as medical staff and worked in the same clinical setting. More than 60% reported co-management of patients with medical professionals. Integrated DCs most often received and made referrals to primary care, physical medicine, pain medicine, orthopedics, and physical or occupational therapy. Although in many facilities the DCs were exclusive providers of spinal manipulation (43%), in most, manipulative therapies also were delivered by physical therapists and osteopathic or medical physicians. Informal face-to-face consultations and shared health records were the most common communication methods. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors of chiropractic are working in diverse medical settings within the private sector, in close proximity and collaboration with many provider types, suggesting a diverse role for chiropractors within conventional health care facilities.

Association Among Opioid Use, Treatment Preferences, and Perceptions of Physician Treatment Recommendations in Patients With Neck and Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between self-reported use of opioids by patients with neck and back pain and their demographics, pain characteristics, treatment preferences, and recollections of their physicians' opinions regarding treatment options. METHODS: We analyzed 2017 Gallup Poll survey data from 1680 US adults who had substantial spine pain in the past year and used logistic regression to explore the aforementioned relationships. RESULTS: Our multiple regression analysis indicated that adults with neck or back pain severe enough to have sought health care within the last year were more likely to have used opioids in the last year if they (in descending order of marginal impact) had pain that had lasted 1 year or less (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 34.35, 90% confidence interval [CI] 17.56-74.32); concurrently used benzodiazepines (OR = 6.02, 90% CI 2.95-12.33); had Medicaid as an insurance source (OR = 3.29, 90% CI 1.40-7.48); indicated that they preferred to use pain medications prescribed by a doctor to treat physical pain (OR = 3.24, 90% CI 1.88-5.60); or were not college educated (OR = 1.83, 90% CI 1.05-3.25). Compared with patients aged 65 years and older, those aged 18 to 34 years were less likely to have used opioids in the past year (OR = 0.09, 90% CI 0.01-0.40, 0.50 for 95% CI). Respondents' perceptions of medical doctors' positive or negative opinions regarding a variety of neck and back pain treatment options were not significantly associated with opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with neck and back pain who use opioids differ from those who do not use opioids in that they are more likely to have pain that is of shorter duration, to use benzodiazepines, to have Medicaid as an insurance source, and to prefer to use pain medications. Those characteristics should be considered when developing opioid use prevention strategies.

Chiropractic Integrated Care Pathway for Low Back Pain in Veterans: Results of a Delphi Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop an integrated care pathway for doctors of chiropractic, primary care providers, and mental health professionals who manage veterans with low back pain, with or without mental health comorbidity, within Department of Veterans Affairs health care facilities. METHODS: The research method used was a consensus process. A multidisciplinary investigative team reviewed clinical guidelines and Veterans Affairs pain and mental health initiatives to develop seed statements and care algorithms to guide chiropractic management and collaborative care of veterans with low back pain. A 5-member advisory committee approved initial recommendations. Veterans Affairs-based panelists (n = 58) evaluated the pathway via e-mail using a modified RAND/UCLA methodology. Consensus was defined as agreement by 80% of panelists. RESULTS: The modified Delphi process was conducted in July to December 2016. Most (93%) seed statements achieved consensus during the first round, with all statements reaching consensus after 2 rounds. The final care pathway addressed the topics of informed consent, clinical evaluation including history and examination, screening for red flags, documentation, diagnostic imaging, patient-reported outcomes, adverse event reporting, chiropractic treatment frequency and duration standards, tailored approaches to chiropractic care in veteran populations, and clinical presentation of common mental health conditions. Care algorithms outlined chiropractic case management and interprofessional collaboration and referrals between doctors of chiropractic and primary care and mental health providers. CONCLUSION: This study offers an integrative care pathway that includes chiropractic care for veterans with low back pain.

Patient-centered professional practice models for managing low back pain in older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a debilitating condition for older adults, who may seek healthcare from multiple providers. Few studies have evaluated impacts of different healthcare delivery models on back pain outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of older adults receiving back pain treatment under 3 professional practice models that included primary medical care with or without chiropractic care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial with 131 community-dwelling, ambulatory older adults with subacute or chronic low back pain. Participants were randomly allocated to 12 weeks of individualized primary medical care (Medical Care), concurrent medical and chiropractic care (Dual Care), or medical and chiropractic care with enhanced interprofessional collaboration (Shared Care). Primary outcomes were low back pain intensity rated on the numerical rating scale and back-related disability measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included clinical measures, adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Statistical analyses included mixed-effects regression models and general estimating equations. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, participants in all three treatment groups reported improvements in mean average low back pain intensity [Shared Care: 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0 to 2.6; Dual Care: 3.0; 95% CI 2.3 to 3.8; Medical Care: 2.3; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.2)] and back-related disability (Shared Care: 2.8; 95% CI 1.6 to 4.0; Dual Care: 2.5; 95% CI 1.3 to 3.7; Medical Care: 1.5; 95% CI 0.2 to 2.8). No statistically significant differences were noted between the three groups on the primary measures. Participants in both models that included chiropractic reported significantly better perceived low back pain improvement, overall health and quality of life, and greater satisfaction with healthcare services than patients who received medical care alone. CONCLUSIONS: Professional practice models that included primary care and chiropractic care led to modest improvements in low back pain intensity and disability for older adults, with chiropractic-inclusive models resulting in better perceived improvement and patient satisfaction over the primary care model alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01312233 , 4 March 2011.

Association of lumbar spine stiffness and flexion-relaxation phenomenon with patient-reported outcomes in adults with chronic low back pain - a single-arm clinical trial investigating the effects of thrust spinal manipulation.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulation (SM) is used commonly for treating low back pain (LBP). Spinal stiffness is routinely assessed by clinicians performing SM. Flexion-relaxation ratio (FRR) was shown to distinguish between LBP and healthy populations. The primary objective of this study was to examine the association of these two physiological variables with patient-reported pain intensity and disability in adults with chronic LBP (>12 weeks) receiving SM. METHODS: A single-arm trial provided 12 sessions of side-lying thrust SM in the lumbosacral region over 6 weeks. Inclusion criteria included 21-65 years old, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score ≥ 6 and numerical pain rating score ≥ 2. Spinal stiffness and FRR were assessed pre-treatment at baseline, after 2 weeks and after 6 weeks of treatment. Lumbar spine global stiffness (GS) were calculated from the force-displacement curves obtained using i) hand palpation, ii) a hand-held device, and iii) an automated indenter device. Lumbar FRR was assessed during trunk flexion-extension using surface electromyography. The primary outcomes were RMDQ and pain intensity measured by visual analog scale (VAS). Mixed-effects regression models were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The mean age of the 82 participants was 45 years; 48% were female; and 84% reported LBP >1 year. The mean (standard deviation) baseline pain intensity and RMDQ were 46.1 (18.1) and 9.5 (4.3), respectively. The mean reduction (95% confidence interval) after 6 weeks in pain intensity and RMDQ were 20.1 mm (14.1 to 26.1) and 4.8 (3.7 to 5.8). There was a small change over time in the palpatory GS but not in the hand-held or automated GS, nor in FRR. The addition of each physiologic variable did not affect the model-estimated changes in VAS or RMDQ over time. There was no association seen between physiological variables and LBP intensity. Higher levels of hand-held GS at L3 and automated GS were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively) and lower levels of flexion and extension FRR were significantly associated with higher levels of RMDQ (p = 0.02 and 0.008, respectively) across the 3 assessment time points. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in pain and disability observed in study participants with chronic LBP was not associated with the measured GS or FRR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01670292 on clinicaltrials.gov, August 2, 2012.

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Per Capita Supply of Doctors of Chiropractic and Opioid Use in Younger Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the per-capita supply of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) or Medicare spending on chiropractic care was associated with opioid use among younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Using 2011 data, at the hospital referral region level, we correlated the per-capita supply of DCs and spending on chiropractic manipulative therapy (CMT) with several measures of per-capita opioid use by younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries. RESULTS: Per-capita supply of DCs and spending on CMT were strongly inversely correlated with the percentage of younger Medicare beneficiaries who had at least 1, as well as with 6 or more, opioid prescription fills. Neither measure was correlated with mean daily morphine equivalents per opioid user or per chronic opioid user. CONCLUSIONS: A higher per-capita supply of DCs and Medicare spending on CMT were inversely associated with younger, disabled Medicare beneficiaries obtaining an opioid prescription. However, neither measure was associated with opioid dosage among patients who obtained opioid prescriptions.

Characteristics of US Adults Who Have Positive and Negative Perceptions of Doctors of Chiropractic and Chiropractic Care.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare characteristics, likelihood to use, and actual use of chiropractic care for US survey respondents with positive and negative perceptions of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and chiropractic care. METHODS: From a 2015 nationally representative survey of 5422 adults (response rate, 29%), we used respondents' answers to identify those with positive and negative perceptions of DCs or chiropractic care. We used the χ(2) test to compare other survey responses for these groups. RESULTS: Positive perceptions of DCs were more common than those for chiropractic care, whereas negative perceptions of chiropractic care were more common than those for DCs. Respondents with negative perceptions of DCs or chiropractic care were less likely to know whether chiropractic care was covered by their insurance, more likely to want to see a medical doctor first if they were experiencing neck or back pain, less likely to indicate that they would see a DC for neck or back pain, and less likely to have ever seen a DC as a patient, particularly in the recent past. Positive perceptions of chiropractic care and negative perceptions of DCs appear to have greater influence on DC utilization rates than their converses. CONCLUSION: We found that US adults generally perceive DCs in a positive manner but that a relatively high proportion has negative perceptions of chiropractic care, particularly the costs and number of visits required by such care. Characteristics of respondents with positive and negative perceptions were similar, but those with positive perceptions were more likely to plan to use-and to have already received-chiropractic care.